This makes sense if you're making chairs. It doesn't make sense for making art. There is a fundamental difference between a physical good and an intellectual good.
Physical goods are scarce by nature. If I make 50 chairs, I have 50 objects to sell. If someone takes 25 of my chairs away from me, now I only have 25 to sell, and have lost up to 1/2 of my potential profit. I say "up to" because this assumes I would have sold all 50 of my chairs...if I was only ever going to sell 25 of them then I've literally lost nothing.
Intellectual goods are not scarce. In modern society, with the internet, they are effectively infinite. It costs me the same (essentially, ignoring bandwidth) to produce a video that is viewed once online as one that is viewed a hundred million times online. Supply for the "individual" good is infinite once released; therefore the value of that good, if you use traditional economics and treat it the same way as a physical good, is effectively zero. Shockingly, that's all many individuals are willing to pay.
Therefore, the only NATURAL way to earn money on an intellectual good is by offering to sell your ability to create the goods. In ancient times we called this "patronage" and in modern times we call it "work-for-hire" or "crowdsourcing" depending on the source of the earnings. Someone pays you to create a product, you create the product, you get paid, and you need to create another product if you want to make more.
From the artists' perspective, they already do this, with or without copyright. The only difference is that their work is either purchased by their fans, via crowdsourcing, donations, advertisements, and other forms of sponsorship, or the work is purchased by signing on with a publisher. In the latter case, it's the publisher that gains all the benefit of copyright, NOT the artist. Publishers have become very good at lying to artists and explaining how a diminished copyright hurts the artist, but ultimately the artist themself is only helped by lack of copyright protection. This is because the more individuals that are exposed to their product the more likely others are to sponsor them...the biggest risk to an artist is not being copied but being unknown. The only person losing any significant amount of money (and even that is debatable) is the publisher, an entity that creates nothing on its own.
Your argument is fundamentally flawed because it only takes into account certain facts while ignoring the system as a whole. For your idea to be true, first you MUST assume that lack of copyright causes producers to incur higher costs, when the opposite is much more likely. Without copyright, all the money being spent on lawyers and royalties would be virtually non-existent. Second, you assume that without copyright, fewer people would pay for intellectual works (why pay if you can get it for free?) which is also not true; all content can be easily gained for free, regardless of the "protections," yet the intellectual works industries are reporting higher profits every year. Third, you assume that more profits means more people entering the field, when the actual history indicates that stronger copyright creates more exclusivity in intellectual markets; those chosen by the publishers get richer, but those without publisher support make little to nothing.
Humans are amazingly skilled at ignoring facts that disagree with the reality they want to exist, rather that looking at all the facts and accepting what reality IS. You can't just take two things with fundamentally different natures, apply the same math, and then say "See? They're the same!" You also can't just ignore factors that don't fit your analogy.
We tried not having any copyright once, in the 18th century. It created an anarchic state that made the need for copyright obvious, and that was when printing presses were rare and expensive.
Um, what? Prior to the Statute of Anne (1710) copyright didn't exist. The European Renaissance was generally from the 14th-17th century, and is considered one of the greatest artistic periods in human history. And the entire time, copyright didn't exist. At all. In any form.
Copyright was created to enforce church (at the time, the government) censorship. The printing press allowed works of dissent and criticism of the government to be distributed rapidly and cheaply. This led to copyright...the right of the government to print Bibles and other works that enforced the status quo. Other works were shut down because they weren't "licensed."
The Statue of Anne was designed to limit the copyright term to avoid using it as a form of government censorship. Make no mistake, however, copyright has always been designed for two things; the benefit of the publisher and the benefit of the government. It has never been about the artists, and the fact that the greatest artistic period in European history was ended the time copyright started should make that obvious.
Seriously, I have to throw your own words back at you..."those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
To expose a participant's real-name identity on a site that claims anonymity, without good cause, such as protection of other participants against threats of harm, is a breach of contract.
The blog doesn't have a privacy policy and doesn't create an account; it just asks for name and email address (the email address isn't published). There's no contract to breach as they didn't publish his email.
Once you make a single undocumented exception to a rule, the rule no longer exists.
You're sort of correct here...the rule never existed.
Sock-puppetry is easily controlled by simply placing the participant's other handles in brackets beside the newest handle.
This isn't that easy from a technical standpoint. IP addresses are not that reliable as a method for determining identity (even with a subpoena). At most you can identify the computer someone is using. What if they create one account from a library computer or mobile device and another from a home computer? What if they unplug their router for a night and get assigned a new IP? What if two people are using the same computer? And this is all without getting into proxies or VPNs.
You can find a lot of information about someone online if you are really looking for it. It's pretty hard to automate, though, since computers are kind of dumb. And ultimately people tend to avoid any sort of online posting area that doesn't offer anonymity.
It does, however, state that "your email address will not be published." I couldn't find a privacy policy (so I guess lack of one equals no privacy?).
That being said, in opposition to my earlier opinion, I'm not convinced the blog did the wrong thing anymore. It looks like they'd already pretty much figured it out based on the 4chan method (based on writing style and political views, and some good old internet searches...basically using the same thing anyone else could).
They just used the IP addresses later to confirm it, and it looks like they did so to respond to terms of service violations for actions on the other website. The way it was implied from this story made it sound like the website outed him based purely on his user account's hidden information.
I still believe politicians should be allowed to post anonymously online. This guy crossed the line from "political discourse" to "abusive user" and the blog used standard journalistic techniques, not just inside knowledge of his account information, to out him.
I'm all for free speech, and anonymity...but free speech can have consequences, and it's the blogs free speech to call him out. I guess it wasn't the end result that bothered me as much as the method...and since the method seems to be standard journalism I don't really have a problem with it. It's when people abuse the "3rd party doctrine" that I get upset.
I also disagree. There is a big difference between personal opinion and public opinion. Politicians are humans and still have the same rights. Also, just because someone has an opinion or personality you don't like does NOT mean they are acting against your will.
I'm personally in the military, and the way I act in my professional environment is different than the way I act at home. If I disagree with an order, for example, my subordinates will never know it. If I wrote an anonymous blog explaining why that order is dumb, should I be outed because I work for the government? Maybe it's not exactly the same, but you can do your job (in my case, enforcing orders, in the politician's case, acting in accordance with the will of his constituents) without personally agreeing with it.
Perhaps in this particular case it's different, but there are plenty of things I've written online that I would not want associated with my military background, because they are written from the persepective of ME, as JP Jones, not the U.S. Government, as a commissioned officer. It's not because I'm ashamed of these things, it's simply because my personal views do not necessarily represent the views of my organization. And when acting in an official capacity, I act in accordance with the organization's view...not my own.
Why? That's what it means to be a public servant and work for the people; you supplant your own will for the will of the people when acting in their name. That doesn't mean I should have to give up my own opinions and freedoms; I'm still an American citizen and have the right to disagree with anyone I wish (and good luck trying to take it away!).
While I do believe this guy was inappropriate and disagree (at least in form) with his opinions, I believe that being in the public eye does not automatically force you to give up your privacy. His actions were not illegal and, had they been left private, would not have had a negative impact on his public persona.
In the military we often ask whether or not a particular action was "prejudicial to good order and discipline" and often the fact whether anyone knows about it is a deciding factor (e.g., an anonymous posting of "Obama sucks!" is not an issue, but the same posting from "Sgt Smith, United States Army" is a court-martialable offense).
Since his actions didn't fit this test until they were revealed, I would say the blog is at fault for violating their anonymity. Anonymous political discourse by politicians is built into the foundation of our political system (*cough* the Federalist Papers *cough*). Removing that freedom just because we have the technical capability would be a pretty significant loss to the political process.
Um...you just increased the amount of money in politics.
Politics costs money. Everything costs money in one way or another. To paraphrase one of my college professors: "politics is the method by which human beings decide who gets what." Since we use money as the primary determination for our economy (also "who gets what") that means politics is all about money, or at least economic value.
You can't remove money from politics. The money, however, isn't the problem. The problem is the strings attached to the money, the intent behind those who "donate" to the political process. This has a class-based definition: if the rich or affluent do it, it's called "lobbying" and if the poor or middle class do it it's called "bribery." The result is the same; the implication is that the individual receiving the money will behave in a manner that benefits the one giving the money, and if they do not, the money will not be offered. Since money is required to have a successful campaign (and thus get elected) this becomes a major factor in how politians act.
The idea behind a crowd funded PAC is that by making the money generic and outside of the control of any political goal or intent you remove the "or else" from the equation. This means politicians are compelled to act in accordance with what their constituents want because now their votes are the primary determining factor in how they represent us, not the money from campaign contributions (which currently have the largest impact on elections). In other words, our representatives are motivated to represent the voters rather than the lobby.
Huh, imagine that. The first episode is available to watch legally, and a lot of people watch it legally. The second episode isn't...and isn't watched as much. Imagine that.
I'm suddenly very interested in this show. If I can watch it legally, I will...if not, I'll probably watch it anyway. I understand the argument of "support the artists!" Totally get it. But here's the thing; if you won't sell me your product, I can't buy it. If I can't buy it, I can't support it.
Here's the problem that I (and a lot of people here on Techdirt) have. We aren't going to buy stuff that's worthless to us just to buy the stuff we do want. It's sort of like saying "well, you want some new tires, and we want you to support us, so here is some new tires...but you can only buy them along with this new car." You already have a car, you say, and it works perfectly fine. "Sorry! Pay for the whole car or nothing."
Offer us the service we want at a reasonable price and we'll buy it. Note that "reasonable prices" are set by what the consumer is willing to pay, not what the seller wants you to pay.
Note that this is directed to the cable companies, not Will Wheaton. Will Wheaton rocks.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is truly astonishing.
You think adding two plus two is the same as the literal text "2+2"? Because I can certainly add two plus two without writing "2+2"!
Right, and this is a perfect example, and why the two are the same.
Here's the thing. Let's say I write "2+2=4" to, well, add 2+2. That statement is not covered by copyright, even though it is an expression. Anyone else can write "2+2=4" and not be in violation of copyright.
You stated earlier, however, that APIs are different because you can write them differently and get the same result. So what? I can write "2+5+2-5+3-8+5=4" and, while silly, is still not covered by copyright, even if it's unique. Maybe nobody else would use that method to add 2+2. Maybe I was trying to make a smiley face, or use it as an artistic expression on how the fundamental truths of the world can be obfuscated by complexity. It's irrelevant...if someone else wanted to add 2+2 they could use my method, even in their own work, and there isn't a darn thing I can do about it (nor should there be).
An API is closer to programming languages themselves than any sort of software. If I write the code "if then " the computer isn't actually seeing what I wrote, it's seeing a bunch of zeros and ones that mathematically result in the output I expect, based on the compiler and operating system.
This argument is basically that, because a program is written in Windows, and pull from Microsoft's methods to display information, Microsoft has a copyright claim on every Windows program.
Which is silly. Which is the whole point. You can try and prove your point by saying "2+5+2-5+3-8+5=5" all you want, but you'll still be wrong.
This is a strawman. He never asked how they were doing the surveillance. Everyone knows the intel community can, for example, collect radio communications. Some of the basic techniques and theory is unclassified. Does that knowledge alone prevent you from having your radio communications collected? Nope, we still have that capability and still utilize it.
Here's the thing. These mass surveillance programs don't really affect terrorists. Any one of them with half a brain knows there's the potential for their communcations to be recording and are already prepared for it. The only ones that didn't figure this out are probably already dead.
During the interview Hayden never really explained why, if the bulk metadata is only being used for targeted purposes, that targeted techniques were insufficient.
By your logic we shouldn't have ever let the American public know we attacked Iraq. After all, if the Iraqis knew we were planning to attack, they could defend! They could prepare counters! Instead let's have a completely secret war because "operational security."
But we didn't do that, and we shouldn't have, because the American people need to know what their military is doing. Guess what? Troop movements in Iraq, tactics being used, and other operational information was classified and not released to the public.
So, why not release the general information (we're massively gathering data on all Americans) but keep out the actual techniques used? Why not explain, in detail, the reason why these programs must exist?
Oh, right. Because they knew the public would be upset and now they are stuck having to retroactively convince us to toss out our rights rather than do it behind our backs.
Ok, so let's play the logic game. You assume that people are going to massively "paint over" the LED and leave their glass in recording mode. This implies an intent to covertly record people.
Guess what I can do? Put my cell phone in a breast pocket, cut a tiny hole where the camera is, and I can record you with the same or less effort than you just used on Google glass, with as much if not more subtlety. Yet for some reason you don't hear about a massive influx of "public spying" from those darn smart phone users.
Why not? Well, first of all it's kind of creepy. Second few phones have the memory capacity or batterly life to sit in video mode recording uncompressed video and audio. Third, in order to get around the second point (you can't get around the first!), you need a way to activate the device, which is impossible to do without it being obvious.
The cell phone in that simple, free (except for the tiny hole in a shirt) method is better at sneaky surveillance than the glass. It's less obvious that you have a recording device out, you're not reliant on two battery sources (the glass has negligible onboard memory so the video is all going to be saved to your phone anyway), and is a heck of a lot cheaper.
People are concerned about Google glass because it's new and they don't understand what it can do yet, or the social implications of that power. And just like every other new, unusual innovation, we have a mandatory freak-out period where people try to say it's going to ruin life, liberty, and privacy because reasons.
They might as well have let Hitler win because slowly the USA, UK and Australia are turning into the very fascist states they defeated.
Godwin's law already?
U.S. soldiers, in general, aren't really fighting for freedom. Protecting our rights and freedoms is the job of Congress and the American people. The soldier's job is to fight our enemies, whomever, whenever, and wherever they are.
To be honest most service members rarly worry about things like "fighting for freedom" but instead are worried about keeping the guy to the left and the right alive because they're your brother or sister. Our job is to win, to be America's sword and shield.
Theoretically the people wielding that weapon are the American people. It doesn't always work out but it's not the military's job to decide whether or not a war should be fought, it's our job to win it. And we've done a darn good job overall.
Politics and military service don't mesh well. There are things I can say anonymously as an American citizen that would be problamatic if I were to say them in an official capacity as myself. This is very hard to understand if you've never been in the service as I don't see this as a violation of free speech, even though politically I'm a huge supporter of nearly ubiquitous free speech. I simply don't want people taking what I, as an American citizen, say as what my military service is saying. Unfortunately it's very difficult for people to separate the two once associated.
I do believe the U.S. has gone astray. Yet I still have faith in my country. The fight isn't over, and the world of today is not necessarily the world of tomorrow.
That being said...this whole scenario is retarded. This is exactly why I don't go to movie theaters anymore. The fact that we have these strict anti-recording laws for so many states is a travesty. Since when is it the state's job to protect a specific type of business? Ludicrous.
A gun can be used to hunt, you know, for food. It can be used in self defense. It can also be used for fun.
Guns have a purpose, and are primarily used for legal reasons in the U.S. The U.S. has about a gun for ever single person in the country (obviously some have more than others). We aren't all murdering each other with them. Obviously they have some other purpose.
Your original argument was that more guns cause more gun violence, and that gun control laws significantly reduce gun violence. Yet the data does not support your claim. You also repeatedly take extreme positions against guns, then accuse others of "religious" pro-gun positions.
You argue that I'm using a fallacy, yet have repeatedly used "Texas sharpshooter" data (picking only countries that support your position, ignoring ones that don't), created strawman arguments (arguing that I'm "pro-gun" when I've never stated any such thing, also misrepresenting my statement about cars out of context and indeed repeating my own arguments about the benefit of cars as if I hadn't taken that into consideration), taken black-and-white positions (you either accept the "scientific data" about gun control you presented or you are taking a "religious", i.e. faith-based, view, when other possibilities exist; also, that guns only have one purpose: destruction). Your last post is pretty much one giant loaded question. That's at least four logical fallacies with just a cursory look.
Please, tell me what fallacy I've used. A comparison between two things is not automatically a fallacy. I'll use my next comparison as an example of this; if all comparisons (or analogies) were fallacies then most U.S. and UK law would be based on fallacy. Most of common law is designed around comparison of related cases, i.e. precedent.
It's telling how you consistently accuse others of exactly the type of thinking you're using to minimize their argument. But I'm not arguing against gun control because I'm pro-gun, or because I don't care about gun violence. It's because I don't believe gun control works and I've already explained the reasons why I don't believe it works. I've also explained why your very specific examples don't explain how gun control works logically or statistically.
When you're ready to argue based on facts, as you implied in your earlier posts, I'd love to hear them. Good luck!
Google glass has voice commands and a red light that turns on when it's recording. Technically I guess you could override these systems but, well, you can put a pinhole camera in just about anything and record everyone much more subtly (and cheaply) than Google glass.
This is the same silly logic that has everyone paranoid about the "drone spying menace." Guess what? If someone wants to spy on you, than can do it with cheaper, more effective technology than drones or something like Google glass.
Have you guys seen Google glass? It's not exactly a subtle system. Most areas with an expectation of privacy are probably going to ask people to take them off.
I think the article is spot-on...people are overreacting. These posts are a case-in-point.
But that's the line of reasoning that doesn't make any sense. Of course there's an expectation of privacy on information voluntarily released to third parties. I give my mail to the Post Office. Should I assume the employees and/or government are going to read it? If I put personal documents in a bank's safety deposit box, would it be irrational to assume it's not going to be read through?
If it's assumed that all online interaction has no reasonable expectation of privacy, why do we have passwords? Why not just let everyone access everything? After all, we don't expect anyone to restrict that access, right?
Like I said, from a legal standpoint, you are correct. The Smith decision applies to bulk metadata collection because scale is not a factor to whether or not a specific action is legal or illegal. If it's illegal to one person, it's illegal to a million...if it's legal to one person, it's legal to everyone, according to the law.
But from a logical standpoint, from a real-world effects standpoint, it's absolutely retarded, and completely flies in the face of common sense. That's why the decision had to be secret...if it was open, it was sure to be challenged. It was sure to be challenged because it's bonkers.
Maybe an example will help. Take the following silly logic game that presents the following: Person 1: Are you in Texas? Person 2: No. Person 1: Are you in New York? Person 2: No. Person 1: The you must be someplace else. Person 2: Right. Person 1: Well, if you are someplace else, then you aren't here. Person 2: Uh, what?
Sure, it works from a technical, what-these-words-mean standpoint. But from a logical standpoint it's clearly flawed reasoning. And this flawed reasoning is allowing for the government to take all your data without cause or due process. And there's nothing you can do about it, because (drum roll)...you're not here.
Interestingly, Hayden denies Snowden had access to the "operational network" that would allow access to this data, but a former collegue of Snowden stated that he was given "full administrator priveledges, with virtually unlimited access to NSA data." Sure, it may have been illegal for him to do it, but it was technically possible...which is the "technical authority."
Either way, Hayden's assertation that "only 22 people" have access to this database (which begs the question of why they have training slides, which were the original leaks, to train these 22 guys) is more troubling to me. Who watches these 22 people? Themselves?
"Policy" is not a safeguard. Policy is just a rule, like a law, and laws are broken all the time. It's agains the law to steal, yet virtually everyone uses locks for to protect their stuff.
The sad part is Alexis is right, he just showed up for the wrong debate without enough facts to back him up. Glenn was obviously well-prepared. Alexis was shooting from the hip and it showed.
Alexis was trying to get at how discouraging encryption and undermining internet security by keeping security vulnerabilities hidden as "exploits" rather than revealing them so they can be patched hurts ALL internet security. That just wasn't what the other three people showed up to debate. They kept talking about bulk metadata's legality and effect on the economy and people and he was trying to discuss how weaking the internet's infrastructure to support these programs hurts all security. He just wasn't able to work it into the greater debate happening and ended up being out of his depth.
Which is too bad because it's a part of the greater debate which gets left out too often.
It is directed to unreasonable searches and seizures, and as decided in 1979 by the USSC in Smith v. Maryland the collection of information via pen registers was not a search for constitutional purposes; i.e., the 4th Amendment did not pertain.
Key phrase from this..."decided in 1979." In 1979 the hot new computer was the Atari 400/800, running at a wopping 1.79 mhz. By comparison, the graphing calculator I used in high school from 1998-2002, the TI-83, ran around 6 mhz. My current watch (Pebble Smartwatch) runs around 120 mhz. So in 35 years a watch has about 67 times the processing power of the fastest personal computer.
If you honestly believe that the scenario presented in Smith v. Maryland has any relevance to bulk metadata collection, well, you may be correct from a legal standpoint. But from a rational one? Sorry, you've crossed over into the looney bin.
On the post: Federal Prosecutor Claims That Copyright Infringement 'Discourages Smart People From Doing Innovative Things'
Re:
This makes sense if you're making chairs. It doesn't make sense for making art. There is a fundamental difference between a physical good and an intellectual good.
Physical goods are scarce by nature. If I make 50 chairs, I have 50 objects to sell. If someone takes 25 of my chairs away from me, now I only have 25 to sell, and have lost up to 1/2 of my potential profit. I say "up to" because this assumes I would have sold all 50 of my chairs...if I was only ever going to sell 25 of them then I've literally lost nothing.
Intellectual goods are not scarce. In modern society, with the internet, they are effectively infinite. It costs me the same (essentially, ignoring bandwidth) to produce a video that is viewed once online as one that is viewed a hundred million times online. Supply for the "individual" good is infinite once released; therefore the value of that good, if you use traditional economics and treat it the same way as a physical good, is effectively zero. Shockingly, that's all many individuals are willing to pay.
Therefore, the only NATURAL way to earn money on an intellectual good is by offering to sell your ability to create the goods. In ancient times we called this "patronage" and in modern times we call it "work-for-hire" or "crowdsourcing" depending on the source of the earnings. Someone pays you to create a product, you create the product, you get paid, and you need to create another product if you want to make more.
From the artists' perspective, they already do this, with or without copyright. The only difference is that their work is either purchased by their fans, via crowdsourcing, donations, advertisements, and other forms of sponsorship, or the work is purchased by signing on with a publisher. In the latter case, it's the publisher that gains all the benefit of copyright, NOT the artist. Publishers have become very good at lying to artists and explaining how a diminished copyright hurts the artist, but ultimately the artist themself is only helped by lack of copyright protection. This is because the more individuals that are exposed to their product the more likely others are to sponsor them...the biggest risk to an artist is not being copied but being unknown. The only person losing any significant amount of money (and even that is debatable) is the publisher, an entity that creates nothing on its own.
Your argument is fundamentally flawed because it only takes into account certain facts while ignoring the system as a whole. For your idea to be true, first you MUST assume that lack of copyright causes producers to incur higher costs, when the opposite is much more likely. Without copyright, all the money being spent on lawyers and royalties would be virtually non-existent. Second, you assume that without copyright, fewer people would pay for intellectual works (why pay if you can get it for free?) which is also not true; all content can be easily gained for free, regardless of the "protections," yet the intellectual works industries are reporting higher profits every year. Third, you assume that more profits means more people entering the field, when the actual history indicates that stronger copyright creates more exclusivity in intellectual markets; those chosen by the publishers get richer, but those without publisher support make little to nothing.
Humans are amazingly skilled at ignoring facts that disagree with the reality they want to exist, rather that looking at all the facts and accepting what reality IS. You can't just take two things with fundamentally different natures, apply the same math, and then say "See? They're the same!" You also can't just ignore factors that don't fit your analogy.
Sorry.
On the post: Defending The Indefensible: Hilarious Talking Points On Ridiculous Copyright Terms
Re: Re: Re: Why not elimiate copyright
Um, what? Prior to the Statute of Anne (1710) copyright didn't exist. The European Renaissance was generally from the 14th-17th century, and is considered one of the greatest artistic periods in human history. And the entire time, copyright didn't exist. At all. In any form.
Copyright was created to enforce church (at the time, the government) censorship. The printing press allowed works of dissent and criticism of the government to be distributed rapidly and cheaply. This led to copyright...the right of the government to print Bibles and other works that enforced the status quo. Other works were shut down because they weren't "licensed."
The Statue of Anne was designed to limit the copyright term to avoid using it as a form of government censorship. Make no mistake, however, copyright has always been designed for two things; the benefit of the publisher and the benefit of the government. It has never been about the artists, and the fact that the greatest artistic period in European history was ended the time copyright started should make that obvious.
Seriously, I have to throw your own words back at you..."those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
On the post: Local Blog Outs Local Politician's Crazy But Anonymous Comments. So...Is That Okay?
Re: A promise is a promise, or its a lie.
The blog doesn't have a privacy policy and doesn't create an account; it just asks for name and email address (the email address isn't published). There's no contract to breach as they didn't publish his email.
Once you make a single undocumented exception to a rule, the rule no longer exists.
You're sort of correct here...the rule never existed.
Sock-puppetry is easily controlled by simply placing the participant's other handles in brackets beside the newest handle.
This isn't that easy from a technical standpoint. IP addresses are not that reliable as a method for determining identity (even with a subpoena). At most you can identify the computer someone is using. What if they create one account from a library computer or mobile device and another from a home computer? What if they unplug their router for a night and get assigned a new IP? What if two people are using the same computer? And this is all without getting into proxies or VPNs.
You can find a lot of information about someone online if you are really looking for it. It's pretty hard to automate, though, since computers are kind of dumb. And ultimately people tend to avoid any sort of online posting area that doesn't offer anonymity.
It's a nice idea, but not really a solution.
On the post: Local Blog Outs Local Politician's Crazy But Anonymous Comments. So...Is That Okay?
Re: Re: It depends
That being said, in opposition to my earlier opinion, I'm not convinced the blog did the wrong thing anymore. It looks like they'd already pretty much figured it out based on the 4chan method (based on writing style and political views, and some good old internet searches...basically using the same thing anyone else could).
They just used the IP addresses later to confirm it, and it looks like they did so to respond to terms of service violations for actions on the other website. The way it was implied from this story made it sound like the website outed him based purely on his user account's hidden information.
I still believe politicians should be allowed to post anonymously online. This guy crossed the line from "political discourse" to "abusive user" and the blog used standard journalistic techniques, not just inside knowledge of his account information, to out him.
I'm all for free speech, and anonymity...but free speech can have consequences, and it's the blogs free speech to call him out. I guess it wasn't the end result that bothered me as much as the method...and since the method seems to be standard journalism I don't really have a problem with it. It's when people abuse the "3rd party doctrine" that I get upset.
On the post: Local Blog Outs Local Politician's Crazy But Anonymous Comments. So...Is That Okay?
Re: Huppenthal is a public "servant"
I'm personally in the military, and the way I act in my professional environment is different than the way I act at home. If I disagree with an order, for example, my subordinates will never know it. If I wrote an anonymous blog explaining why that order is dumb, should I be outed because I work for the government? Maybe it's not exactly the same, but you can do your job (in my case, enforcing orders, in the politician's case, acting in accordance with the will of his constituents) without personally agreeing with it.
Perhaps in this particular case it's different, but there are plenty of things I've written online that I would not want associated with my military background, because they are written from the persepective of ME, as JP Jones, not the U.S. Government, as a commissioned officer. It's not because I'm ashamed of these things, it's simply because my personal views do not necessarily represent the views of my organization. And when acting in an official capacity, I act in accordance with the organization's view...not my own.
Why? That's what it means to be a public servant and work for the people; you supplant your own will for the will of the people when acting in their name. That doesn't mean I should have to give up my own opinions and freedoms; I'm still an American citizen and have the right to disagree with anyone I wish (and good luck trying to take it away!).
While I do believe this guy was inappropriate and disagree (at least in form) with his opinions, I believe that being in the public eye does not automatically force you to give up your privacy. His actions were not illegal and, had they been left private, would not have had a negative impact on his public persona.
In the military we often ask whether or not a particular action was "prejudicial to good order and discipline" and often the fact whether anyone knows about it is a deciding factor (e.g., an anonymous posting of "Obama sucks!" is not an issue, but the same posting from "Sgt Smith, United States Army" is a court-martialable offense).
Since his actions didn't fit this test until they were revealed, I would say the blog is at fault for violating their anonymity. Anonymous political discourse by politicians is built into the foundation of our political system (*cough* the Federalist Papers *cough*). Removing that freedom just because we have the technical capability would be a pretty significant loss to the political process.
On the post: Awesome Stuff: One Last Chance To Join With Thousands Of Others To Help Limit The Influence Of Money In Politics
Re: Re: I gave
Politics costs money. Everything costs money in one way or another. To paraphrase one of my college professors: "politics is the method by which human beings decide who gets what." Since we use money as the primary determination for our economy (also "who gets what") that means politics is all about money, or at least economic value.
You can't remove money from politics. The money, however, isn't the problem. The problem is the strings attached to the money, the intent behind those who "donate" to the political process. This has a class-based definition: if the rich or affluent do it, it's called "lobbying" and if the poor or middle class do it it's called "bribery." The result is the same; the implication is that the individual receiving the money will behave in a manner that benefits the one giving the money, and if they do not, the money will not be offered. Since money is required to have a successful campaign (and thus get elected) this becomes a major factor in how politians act.
The idea behind a crowd funded PAC is that by making the money generic and outside of the control of any political goal or intent you remove the "or else" from the equation. This means politicians are compelled to act in accordance with what their constituents want because now their votes are the primary determining factor in how they represent us, not the money from campaign contributions (which currently have the largest impact on elections). In other words, our representatives are motivated to represent the voters rather than the lobby.
On the post: Judge Reminds Vexatious Human Being That Ideas -- Even Techno-Dragons With Guns -- Are Not Protected By Copyright
Re: Re: print vs. software
And it totally had space dragons =)
On the post: Wil Wheaton Discusses TV, Cord-Cutting, Piracy... And Trying Desperately To Make Sure Fans Can Watch His Show
I'm suddenly very interested in this show. If I can watch it legally, I will...if not, I'll probably watch it anyway. I understand the argument of "support the artists!" Totally get it. But here's the thing; if you won't sell me your product, I can't buy it. If I can't buy it, I can't support it.
Here's the problem that I (and a lot of people here on Techdirt) have. We aren't going to buy stuff that's worthless to us just to buy the stuff we do want. It's sort of like saying "well, you want some new tires, and we want you to support us, so here is some new tires...but you can only buy them along with this new car." You already have a car, you say, and it works perfectly fine. "Sorry! Pay for the whole car or nothing."
Offer us the service we want at a reasonable price and we'll buy it. Note that "reasonable prices" are set by what the consumer is willing to pay, not what the seller wants you to pay.
Note that this is directed to the cable companies, not Will Wheaton. Will Wheaton rocks.
On the post: Should It Be Against The Law To Say That The Watch You're Selling Was Worn By Sandra Bullock?
that Bullock's character had warn in The Blind Side.
"Warn" should be "worn."
Great article!
On the post: Appeals Court Doesn't Understand The Difference Between Software And An API; Declares APIs Copyrightable
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is truly astonishing.
Right, and this is a perfect example, and why the two are the same.
Here's the thing. Let's say I write "2+2=4" to, well, add 2+2. That statement is not covered by copyright, even though it is an expression. Anyone else can write "2+2=4" and not be in violation of copyright.
You stated earlier, however, that APIs are different because you can write them differently and get the same result. So what? I can write "2+5+2-5+3-8+5=4" and, while silly, is still not covered by copyright, even if it's unique. Maybe nobody else would use that method to add 2+2. Maybe I was trying to make a smiley face, or use it as an artistic expression on how the fundamental truths of the world can be obfuscated by complexity. It's irrelevant...if someone else wanted to add 2+2 they could use my method, even in their own work, and there isn't a darn thing I can do about it (nor should there be).
An API is closer to programming languages themselves than any sort of software. If I write the code "if then " the computer isn't actually seeing what I wrote, it's seeing a bunch of zeros and ones that mathematically result in the output I expect, based on the compiler and operating system.
This argument is basically that, because a program is written in Windows, and pull from Microsoft's methods to display information, Microsoft has a copyright claim on every Windows program.
Which is silly. Which is the whole point. You can try and prove your point by saying "2+5+2-5+3-8+5=5" all you want, but you'll still be wrong.
On the post: Find Two Hours To Watch Glenn Greenwald Debate Michael Hayden
Re: Re:
Here's the thing. These mass surveillance programs don't really affect terrorists. Any one of them with half a brain knows there's the potential for their communcations to be recording and are already prepared for it. The only ones that didn't figure this out are probably already dead.
During the interview Hayden never really explained why, if the bulk metadata is only being used for targeted purposes, that targeted techniques were insufficient.
By your logic we shouldn't have ever let the American public know we attacked Iraq. After all, if the Iraqis knew we were planning to attack, they could defend! They could prepare counters! Instead let's have a completely secret war because "operational security."
But we didn't do that, and we shouldn't have, because the American people need to know what their military is doing. Guess what? Troop movements in Iraq, tactics being used, and other operational information was classified and not released to the public.
So, why not release the general information (we're massively gathering data on all Americans) but keep out the actual techniques used? Why not explain, in detail, the reason why these programs must exist?
Oh, right. Because they knew the public would be upset and now they are stuck having to retroactively convince us to toss out our rights rather than do it behind our backs.
On the post: History Repeating: Google Glass Getting Same Treatment As Walkman And Cameras Once Did
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cool Story Bro!
Guess what I can do? Put my cell phone in a breast pocket, cut a tiny hole where the camera is, and I can record you with the same or less effort than you just used on Google glass, with as much if not more subtlety. Yet for some reason you don't hear about a massive influx of "public spying" from those darn smart phone users.
Why not? Well, first of all it's kind of creepy. Second few phones have the memory capacity or batterly life to sit in video mode recording uncompressed video and audio. Third, in order to get around the second point (you can't get around the first!), you need a way to activate the device, which is impossible to do without it being obvious.
The cell phone in that simple, free (except for the tiny hole in a shirt) method is better at sneaky surveillance than the glass. It's less obvious that you have a recording device out, you're not reliant on two battery sources (the glass has negligible onboard memory so the video is all going to be saved to your phone anyway), and is a heck of a lot cheaper.
People are concerned about Google glass because it's new and they don't understand what it can do yet, or the social implications of that power. And just like every other new, unusual innovation, we have a mandatory freak-out period where people try to say it's going to ruin life, liberty, and privacy because reasons.
Just like the article says.
On the post: Cinemark Tosses Elderly Woman Out Of Theater, Claiming She Was Filming A Movie With Her Phone
Re: More freedoms eroded
Godwin's law already?
U.S. soldiers, in general, aren't really fighting for freedom. Protecting our rights and freedoms is the job of Congress and the American people. The soldier's job is to fight our enemies, whomever, whenever, and wherever they are.
To be honest most service members rarly worry about things like "fighting for freedom" but instead are worried about keeping the guy to the left and the right alive because they're your brother or sister. Our job is to win, to be America's sword and shield.
Theoretically the people wielding that weapon are the American people. It doesn't always work out but it's not the military's job to decide whether or not a war should be fought, it's our job to win it. And we've done a darn good job overall.
Politics and military service don't mesh well. There are things I can say anonymously as an American citizen that would be problamatic if I were to say them in an official capacity as myself. This is very hard to understand if you've never been in the service as I don't see this as a violation of free speech, even though politically I'm a huge supporter of nearly ubiquitous free speech. I simply don't want people taking what I, as an American citizen, say as what my military service is saying. Unfortunately it's very difficult for people to separate the two once associated.
I do believe the U.S. has gone astray. Yet I still have faith in my country. The fight isn't over, and the world of today is not necessarily the world of tomorrow.
That being said...this whole scenario is retarded. This is exactly why I don't go to movie theaters anymore. The fact that we have these strict anti-recording laws for so many states is a travesty. Since when is it the state's job to protect a specific type of business? Ludicrous.
On the post: State Dept Launches 'Free the Press' Campaign Same Day DOJ Asks Supreme Court To Jail Reporter
Re: Re: Ban cars
Guns have a purpose, and are primarily used for legal reasons in the U.S. The U.S. has about a gun for ever single person in the country (obviously some have more than others). We aren't all murdering each other with them. Obviously they have some other purpose.
Your original argument was that more guns cause more gun violence, and that gun control laws significantly reduce gun violence. Yet the data does not support your claim. You also repeatedly take extreme positions against guns, then accuse others of "religious" pro-gun positions.
You argue that I'm using a fallacy, yet have repeatedly used "Texas sharpshooter" data (picking only countries that support your position, ignoring ones that don't), created strawman arguments (arguing that I'm "pro-gun" when I've never stated any such thing, also misrepresenting my statement about cars out of context and indeed repeating my own arguments about the benefit of cars as if I hadn't taken that into consideration), taken black-and-white positions (you either accept the "scientific data" about gun control you presented or you are taking a "religious", i.e. faith-based, view, when other possibilities exist; also, that guns only have one purpose: destruction). Your last post is pretty much one giant loaded question. That's at least four logical fallacies with just a cursory look.
Please, tell me what fallacy I've used. A comparison between two things is not automatically a fallacy. I'll use my next comparison as an example of this; if all comparisons (or analogies) were fallacies then most U.S. and UK law would be based on fallacy. Most of common law is designed around comparison of related cases, i.e. precedent.
It's telling how you consistently accuse others of exactly the type of thinking you're using to minimize their argument. But I'm not arguing against gun control because I'm pro-gun, or because I don't care about gun violence. It's because I don't believe gun control works and I've already explained the reasons why I don't believe it works. I've also explained why your very specific examples don't explain how gun control works logically or statistically.
When you're ready to argue based on facts, as you implied in your earlier posts, I'd love to hear them. Good luck!
On the post: Cinemark Tosses Elderly Woman Out Of Theater, Claiming She Was Filming A Movie With Her Phone
Re: Re: The truth
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
On the post: History Repeating: Google Glass Getting Same Treatment As Walkman And Cameras Once Did
Re: Re: Cool Story Bro!
This is the same silly logic that has everyone paranoid about the "drone spying menace." Guess what? If someone wants to spy on you, than can do it with cheaper, more effective technology than drones or something like Google glass.
Have you guys seen Google glass? It's not exactly a subtle system. Most areas with an expectation of privacy are probably going to ask people to take them off.
I think the article is spot-on...people are overreacting. These posts are a case-in-point.
On the post: Find Two Hours To Watch Glenn Greenwald Debate Michael Hayden
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If it's assumed that all online interaction has no reasonable expectation of privacy, why do we have passwords? Why not just let everyone access everything? After all, we don't expect anyone to restrict that access, right?
Like I said, from a legal standpoint, you are correct. The Smith decision applies to bulk metadata collection because scale is not a factor to whether or not a specific action is legal or illegal. If it's illegal to one person, it's illegal to a million...if it's legal to one person, it's legal to everyone, according to the law.
But from a logical standpoint, from a real-world effects standpoint, it's absolutely retarded, and completely flies in the face of common sense. That's why the decision had to be secret...if it was open, it was sure to be challenged. It was sure to be challenged because it's bonkers.
Maybe an example will help. Take the following silly logic game that presents the following:
Person 1: Are you in Texas?
Person 2: No.
Person 1: Are you in New York?
Person 2: No.
Person 1: The you must be someplace else.
Person 2: Right.
Person 1: Well, if you are someplace else, then you aren't here.
Person 2: Uh, what?
Sure, it works from a technical, what-these-words-mean standpoint. But from a logical standpoint it's clearly flawed reasoning. And this flawed reasoning is allowing for the government to take all your data without cause or due process. And there's nothing you can do about it, because (drum roll)...you're not here.
On the post: Find Two Hours To Watch Glenn Greenwald Debate Michael Hayden
Re:
Either way, Hayden's assertation that "only 22 people" have access to this database (which begs the question of why they have training slides, which were the original leaks, to train these 22 guys) is more troubling to me. Who watches these 22 people? Themselves?
"Policy" is not a safeguard. Policy is just a rule, like a law, and laws are broken all the time. It's agains the law to steal, yet virtually everyone uses locks for to protect their stuff.
On the post: Find Two Hours To Watch Glenn Greenwald Debate Michael Hayden
Re:
Alexis was trying to get at how discouraging encryption and undermining internet security by keeping security vulnerabilities hidden as "exploits" rather than revealing them so they can be patched hurts ALL internet security. That just wasn't what the other three people showed up to debate. They kept talking about bulk metadata's legality and effect on the economy and people and he was trying to discuss how weaking the internet's infrastructure to support these programs hurts all security. He just wasn't able to work it into the greater debate happening and ended up being out of his depth.
Which is too bad because it's a part of the greater debate which gets left out too often.
On the post: Find Two Hours To Watch Glenn Greenwald Debate Michael Hayden
Re:
Key phrase from this..."decided in 1979." In 1979 the hot new computer was the Atari 400/800, running at a wopping 1.79 mhz. By comparison, the graphing calculator I used in high school from 1998-2002, the TI-83, ran around 6 mhz. My current watch (Pebble Smartwatch) runs around 120 mhz. So in 35 years a watch has about 67 times the processing power of the fastest personal computer.
If you honestly believe that the scenario presented in Smith v. Maryland has any relevance to bulk metadata collection, well, you may be correct from a legal standpoint. But from a rational one? Sorry, you've crossed over into the looney bin.
Next >>